Correspondence from Tegeler to Judge Hammer

    FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 fax 203/728-0287 

es 

April 1, 1992 

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 
95 Washington Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill, CV39-0360977S 
  

Dear Judge Hammer, 

Enclosed is a chambers copy of plaintiffs’ proposed Order 
Governing Depositions of Expert Witnesses, with accompanying 
motion and brief. 

Sincerely, 

ry Cr, 
V7) FET 2 y= be 

Philip D. Tegeler 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDT/dmt 

Enclosures 

CC: All Counsel 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

 



      

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. - SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs : 

v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

2 HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. AT HARTFORD 

Defendants : 

  

ORDER GOVERNING DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

The parties to the above captioned case having come before 

the Court seeking an order pursuant to Practice Book §220(A) (2) 

regarding the deposition of expert witnesses and the Court having 

considered the arguments of the parties, the Court now enters the 

following orders pursuant to Practice Book $220(C) in order to 

insure the expeditious conduct of the depositions of expert 

witnesses. 

1. No formal process beyond the issuance of a notice of 

depcsition shall be necessary in order to oblige the party 

identifying an expert witness to produce that expert witness for 

deposition. If either party feels that it is necessary to issue 

a subpoena duces tecum in conjunction with a notice of 

  
 



      
|S
 ] 

deposition, counsel for the party identifying the expert will 

accept service of that subpoena on behalf of the expert witness. 

2. With regard to expert witnesses who reside in states 

other than Connecticut, the party who intends to call that 

witness at trial will determine whether the deposition will be 

taken in Connecticut or in the witness's home state. Any costs 

incurred by the witness for travel, lodging, meals or other 

similar expenses incident to the appearance at the deposition 

shall be the exclusive responsibility of the party who intends to 

call that witness at trial. 

3. The party taking the deposition of an expert under this 

Order shall pay the expert at his regular daily or hourly rate 

for all time spent in the deposition and for a reasonable amount 

of preparation time, not to exceed 4 hours of preparation. The 

party seeking payment shall notify opposing counsel at least one 

week prior to the scheduled deposition of the rate proposed be 

charged for each expert's time, and shall submit an invoice after 

the deposition’ that includes the expert's affidavit regarding 

hours worked and stating the basis for the expert's rate. 

4. A party who believes that the hourly rate calculated 

pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph 3 is not 

reasonable may apply to the court for an order setting a 

different hourly rate. Said application must be accompanied by 

an affidavit and/or other material necessary to support the 

  
  

  
 



      

applicant’s claim that the rate established by subparagraphs (a) 

and (b) of Paragraph 3 is not reasonable. 

5. Reimbursement for the costs associated with the 

attendance of expert witnesses at depositions shall be paid 

within three (3) weeks of submission of the invoice set out in 

Paragraph 3. 

6. The defendants may not seek reimbursement from the 

plaintiffs for the time spent in preparation for or at a 

deposition by any individual who is an employee of the State 

Department of Education at the time of their deposition 

regardless of whether the defendants have designated that person 

as an expert witness or not. 

SO ORDERED: 

  

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 

Dated this: day of April, 1992.